Captain_Canada

Hi! I'm looking to get a new bike as soon as I can buy one. I think I want either a 2021 Giant Defy or 2021 Giant TCR. I'm hoping others who have been in my situation or just know a lot about bikes can help me out.

Me: 6'2, 185lbs, 38 years old, medium flexible. I ride about 2500 miles a year and climb 226,000 feet a year (SF Bay area). I have a second sport I participate in and am a little more fit than my riding numbers suggest, but I have no KOMs and I don't race. Most of my rides are solo but I do some group rides too (currently solo only due to covid). My speeds average around 16 MPH but I'm doing a good amount of climbing.

My current bike is a 2014 CAAD10 105, 58cm. The steerer is uncut, my stem is straight and is almost at the top of the steerer tube (one small spacer above the stem). I have had a professional fit and the fit is good. This has been my only road bike so I don't have a lot of experience with what I like vs don't. I have had this bike for 6 years. Compact 50/34 chainrings, 12-30 (10 speed) cassette. 25mm tires (the most I can fit in this frame).

What I'm looking for:
1. I'd like to be able to fit wider tires (30 or 32). I don't usually go offroad but I do ride a lot of rough pavement. My after work climb has a windy descent over pretty broken up asphalt.
2. I'd like to get an easier easy gear. While I can get up anything in my area with my current setup (50/34 11/30) there are some 15+ percent climbs I do that I would definitely click to an easier gear if I had it.
3. I don't know if my current CAAD10 is comfortable or not. I make it work. On rides above 70 miles I do sometimes feel a bit beat up. I have done centuries comfortably though on this bike.
4. I don't ever plan to race. I do like to go fast. I am not chasing KOMs, I just like to ride fast and feel good.
5. I very rarely do flat rides. As mentioned above, I live in the San Francisco bay area and am going up or down a lot. I enjoy hills and descents.

The reasons I'm thinking endurance: endurance bikes tend to come spec'd with easier gearing and wider tires already, and I might not need as many spacers under the stem. I could always change the rear derailleur hanger, chainrings, and cassette on a racier bike though.


I know the obvious answer is to test ride, but I can't right now due to availability and I'm bike day dreaming. Looking forward to some input from the bikeforums community. What would you do if you were me?

Thanks!

Iride01 

Road bikes in general are endurance bikes. Endurance is just the wider category of what's left when you sub-set bikes with a more aggressive fit and other characteristics into other categories. So even if you aren't going to race, try out the bikes marketed as race and other categories also.

If you ride hills, you should look a weight as a factor for your purchase. I ride my new bike and I don't seem to have any hills that bother me any more. It's so much a difference, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get rid of my old bikes as I just don't care to ride them far. It's not quite a five pound difference, but I sure can tell, and the bikes are very similarly geared.

abourgault

I have bought a new bike last fall and switched from a performance bike to an endurance bike. The former bike (Marinoni VR2) was fitted with 23mm tires, Campagnolo Zonda wheels, carbon frame, 10 speeds, rim brakes, 53-39 crank. I had 4 casettes to choose from. 14-21, 12-23, 12-25 and 12-27. The new bike has 28mm tires, Campagnolo Bora WTO 45 wheels, carbon frame, 12 speeds, disc brakes, 50-34 crank and a 11-32 cassette. The new bike is a Bianchi Infinito CV. In my area the roads are mainly flat. Some small hills but just on the limit to be called hills.
The first time I rode the new bike, after about 50 foot, I stopped pedaling and was wondering what was going on. I can't feel the ruginess of the asphalt, no vibrations, every thing seems so smooth. I feel as comfortable as if I was on a couch. I have rode about 1800 miles since March and never regret my buy. The only component I was wondering if I would still buy a bike with was the disc brakes. They worked perfectly fine but I didn't feel they were adding any benefit but weight to the bike. That was until I climb a road that was about 3 miles long with grades no lower than 15%. On the descent I was very happy to have those disc brakes. In your case, in the San Francisco area I would go with disc brakes. That would also allow the use of larger tires.

With the other bike, after a 100 miles ride, I was not in very good shape. Lots of stifness, back and neck pain. All that is gone with that bike. I would say the big part of the comfort improvement and vibrations attenuation comes from the wider tires. The Countervail probably help but I suspect its minor. The more relaxed position on the bike is surely helping for the neck and back pain.

Contervail il a vibration cancelation technology Bianchi use that has to do with a visco-elastic resin use at some places on the bike.

The only improvement I will do next year is to install a 36 tooth small ring at the front. Those campagnolo casettes increase 1 tooth at every cogs from 11 to 17. Often, I would like to have an 18 tooth cog. But from the 17, the next one is 19 tooth. I usually go on the small ring when I feel that need. But the ratio that would be close to 50-18 is 34-13. I find that to close to the smaller cog. I would prefer the chain to be a coupple of cogs higher to have more choice without going back to the large ring at the front. With a 36 tooth small ring, the chain would rest on alarger cog when the ratio is close to 50-18 ratio.

Atlas Shrugged

I switched from traditional competitive road bikes, my last bike of that type was a Colnago C64, to endurance bikes a few years ago. I love them and will never go back, stable and able to pound out the hours and not feel beat up is great.

guadzilla

From the fact that you are saying you have a lot of spacers under your stem, an endurance geometry would let you replicate your fit coordinates without going into the extreme end of the bike's fit range. And also from your description of your rides, 30-32mm will be perfectly fine to ride.

In terms of comparing fit - look at the stack/reach of your bike and compare it to the stack and reach of whatever bike you are planning to get. An endurance bike will likely have a greater stack - so you can reduce the spacers by an equivalent amount to get the handlebars at the same height. Similarly, the endurance bike may also have a shorter reach - if so, the handlebars will be correspondingly closer with the same stem. You can pretty much nail your fit dead-on using this approach.

Something like a Cervelo Caledonia would be a very good option for you - takes up to 35mm tires, offers a more relaxed position and if the R5 is anything to go by, it will be a fantastic blend of stiffness and comfort.

Johnd.211

My riding stats, goals, and location are very similar to yours and I was wondering the same thing recently when I was looking to change bikes (wanted disc and eTap). Ultimately though, I figured if I could knock out centuries on the old geometry (Focus Izalco Pro), then I'll stick with something on the 'racier' side of the geometry spectrum. I like the way it feels and handles, and only above 70 miles or so do I start wondering if something more comfortable exists.

Then again, maybe I would be more comfortable with 'endurance' geometry, but if I never try it I'll never know.

DaveSSS 

Before buying something new, try to find the stack and reach values for your frame and figure out your stem angle, so you can figure out how a new bike will fit. It's not rocket science. Endurance bikes have 2-4cm more stack height than a racing frame. I ride a racing frame with no spacers and a -17 degree stem to get a 10cm saddle to bar drop. If I wanted to raise the bars by 2cm, I'd change to a -6 stem. The reach may also be 10mm shorter, but stem length can equalize reach.

Obviously, if you change from 23mm tires at 100 psi to 28 or 32 with much lower pressure, the ride will be smoother.

As for disc brakes, there is usually little choice. Very few frames are made with rim brakes these days. Not many racing frames will accommodate 32mm.

deacon mark

Sounds like a pretty good move but I think my only issue is I don't like press fit bottom brackets and so I would go to a Titanium Frame with threaded BB. A Lynskey would be nice and maybe price wise in the ballpark. I just tend to avoid those situations it is much easier to service and you almost never have to touch them. To some extent that is still my preferences for exposed cables much easier to change. Not being retro but just practical although buried cables in the frame are fine you just have to get a system to sway them out down pat. Best to be your own mechanic for most items.

Branko D

Find the stack and the reach of your current bike and compare to the geometry charts of what you are looking at, bearing in mind that if you want to replicate the fit you have without a stack of spacers you need more stack. Or you can remove spacer or two, go ride a century and see how you feel. Sometimes you find comfort going for a racier position.

Aa for feeling beat up, you can always try lowering tire pressure as first port of call, drop it by 5psi at a time and see how you get on with it. Tire pressure can make a tremendous difference in how harsh the ride is overall.
​​​​​​
​​​I have some training climbs near my house with really bad side "roads", where I go as low as 80ish psi on my 23/25mm combo and it's not only much more comfortable but actually faster. Wouldn't do it on a nice road, though - I match the tire pressure to where I expect to ride. Also, top shelf road tires and race inner tubes (latex is a bit of a faff but I can feel the difference) are more comfortable than, say, a pair of Gatorskins.

50-34 with a 11 speed 11-30 is a really sweet all around setup because it has narrow spacing between the cogs at the tall end (unlike 11-32 and 11-34 which have bigger jumps) while 34-30 is still respectable when things get really steep. Occasionally you run into a ramp where you have to stand up and pedal, but that'd be true with a 11-34 too, and is a skill worth cultivating.
When 12 speed becomes more common, there won't be that tradeoff because the really big 12 spees cassettes also have tight spacing at the top end.
​​​​​

genejockey 

If you're running a lot of spacers under the stem, then, yeah, you should think about an endurance bike. The one I got - Canyon Endurace 7.0 - has a 52/36 in front and 11-34 in back. After years of 53/39 and 12-25 or 12-27, it was a revelation. At first I used the 34 A LOT, but recently I'm finding I'm good with the 30, even the 27, and still have the 34 for the REALLY steep pitches. I've got a Large, which comes with something like 37mm of spacers. I started out with all of them under, but that was just too high, so now 25 of them are on top,and I'm thinking about moving another 5 up.

For me, the question is, do my hands automatically fall onto the hoods comfortably? Can I ride mile after mile like that without looking for some relief? Can I pound out a mile or so on the flat in the drops without difficulty? Can I ride a >3 hours without pain other than tired legs? If you can do that, look for a bike that lets you replicate that position. I spent several nights measuring my other 3 bikes and poring over geometry tables before I settled on the Large from Canyon who wanted me on a medium with only two measurements.

Captain_Canada

Thank you for all the responses!

From a stack and reach perspective:

1. The stack on the defy is 21mm higher than my CAAD10
2. The reach on the defy is 9 mm less than my CAAD10

I measured and i have 25MM of spacers below the stem on my CAAD10 (size 58 frame). My stem is 110mm.

From the above, does it sound like i could replicate my old position pretty closely with the defy? would this just mean running 5mm of spacers instead of 25, and a 120mm stem instead of a 110?

SVTNate

Stack and reach, as has been said.

You get fitted for a bike, by a pro, who is asking smart questions about how you feel on the bike and your goals.

Then, if you already have a bike, the pro fits you, you go ride several hundred miles, come back, and dial it in.

At that point, you have the data to go out and make an intelligent choice as to which new bike you should purchase, based upon what is going to require the least amount of changes to fit you.

Hopefully you're not like me.... aside from custom, the current Trek Domane is just about the only thing on the market that will work properly.

Sure, you can go substantially off the reservation in terms of frame geometry, and force yourself to ride something that really doesn't fit you, and be largely okay with it. Most people do exactly that.

But for the amount of riding you're doing, little things become big things, including injuries....

I'm of the mind that having something set up well for yourself is far, far more important than what a frame is marketed as. These days, lots of nice bikes have disc brakes, room for wide tires, you can easily swap into a gravel set if you need to, etc.

TrackSmart

I think you have it exactly right. The main differences between your CAAD10 and an shiny new "endurance" bike are
1) Taller headtube (so fewer spacers under the stem for your current fit)
2) Slightly slower steering (i.e. more "stable", but less agile)
3) Marginally better vibration dampening (the larger tires will make more of a difference than the frame, unless it has micro-suspension built in).
4) Disc brakes are pretty much standard these days (whether you want them or not) and add a bit of weight at the same price point.

You can easily add lower gearing to your CAAD10 with a simple derailleur and cassette swap. And there's nothing wrong with 25mm tires, though you can get a bit more comfort with bigger tires at lower pressures. You could even raise your current handlebar height with a riser stem, though it doesn't sound necessary.

That said, it's fun to have bikes with different ride characteristics! Stable handling and big tires vs. agile handling and skinny tires. If you purchase an endurance bike, it shouldn't really be for the fit, since you've already achieved a good fit (even if it required some spacers). And really, bike fit comes down to just three things: Seat location, handlebar location, bottom bracket location (maybe crankset length, too). If you are not unusual in your proportions, you can get a comfortable position on a wide range of frame sizes and geometries.

That said, if you just want a new bike, then yeah, an "endurance" bike seems like an appropriate choice given your current bike fit (i.e. need for spacers to create a higher stem position). If you were buying a custom frame, you would design it to fit without spacers (or hardly any spacers). So it makes sense that you'd want the same for an off-the-peg bike if you could find it.

FYI: I ride a CAAD10 and think its a great bike with an aggressive fit (with zero spacers under the stem for me). I like the low, racy position for "go fast" rides. I also have a gravel bike with a much taller headtube that feels great for dirt road riding, commuting, and long-but-slow rides. The handlebar position is about 3cm higher on that bike (again with zero spacers under the stem). Handling is very different, too, but appropriate for their respective duties. Point-and-go on the CAAD10 vs. "keep it straight" over loose dirt roads for the gravel bike.

Check out this thread, since if you do decide to go N+1, since you'll likely be considering similar bikes given the climbing you do: https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...ely-light.html

I hope that provides some perspective, whatever your final decision!

MinnMan

Nothing in the OP suggests to me that you need "Endurance" geometry. You can get everything you say you desire on a more conventional "race" frame and keep your current riding position.

You're no where near the target age/audience for "endurance" bikes.

eduskator

Try both a few hours (if possible) and see. I would go with the Defy. IMO, the performance increase you will get with the TCR's more aggressive geometry isn't going to be worth it. You'd get wider tires and easier gearing.

guadzilla

Yup.

TrackSmart

I would just add one important caveat: Frame stack measurements usually *exclude the height of the headset cap*. For instance, my 2012 CAAD10 came with a 25mm headset cap *plus* spacers. I'm guessing yours did, too. So you'll need to measure the headset cap + spacers on CAAD10 and then adjust the Defy accordingly (including it's headset cap, which is surely much shorter than the one on the CAAD10).

I think Cannondale included the really tall headset cap on the CAAD10 to allow folks to run a higher bar position without having so much unprotected carbon tied-up in spacers. You can swap headset caps easily (I did) if you need a lower position. That's obviously not relevant for you, but just a heads-up.

Drew Eckhardt 

A 185 pound rider with five pounds of water/shoes/clothes/helmet/flat kit on a 20 pound bike losing 5 pounds to the UCI minimum is 2.4% faster up the steepest hills, saving less than 90 seconds an hour.

While it'll be nicer, it's not going to make a big dent in the 10-20 minute lead better climbers have on you.

Iride01 

Exactly! It'll be nicer.

I don't care about those in front of me or behind me. My ride enjoyment is all about me.

Captain_Canada

Thanks for this. My CAAD10 does have a 25mm headset cap. So there is 50mm between the frame and stem (25mm headset cap plus 25mm spacers). So given this, assuming the defy has a smaller headset cap, I should be even more likely to be able to match my current position, correct? Maybe assuming the Defy has a 15mm headcap, since there is a 21mm difference in stacks between the two frames, that means there is only really a 10mm difference in where the stem can actually go, assuming i don't switch the endcaps? so i'd just remove 10mm of spacers on the defy and be mostly good to go?

TrackSmart

You said you had a professional fit for your CAAD10 and it's comfortable, which is great. Assuming you want to keep that fit, let's do the math:
- You need the CAAD10's headtube height + 50mm height under your current stem: CAAD + 50mm
- The Defy is 21mm "taller", so you only need 50mm - 21mm = 29mm of height above the headtube of the Defy.

We can't really say how many spacers, exactly, because it will depend on the headset cap. The 2021 Defy appears to have an aerodynamic headset cap and spacers with an asymmetric shape (image). But yeah, you likely won't need more than 10 or 15mm worth of spacers, based on what I can see. It will only take a second for you to measure the space under the stem and adjust accordingly.

That height of spacers seems very reasonable to me. It also means that you have room to get a more aggressive (i.e. lower) fit down the road if you choose. I trust that your professional bike fit gave you a comfortable position, but understand that one's optimal position can change over time. If you are riding a lot you may find equal comfort, in the future, at a slightly lower position than you are using now and potentially gain a bit of aero benefits. There's obviously a balance between 1) comfort and 2) where you can push the most power, and 3) aerodynamics. #1 (comfort) is most important for long rides. #2 (power generation) is next most important, because aero doesn't mean anything if you can't generate good power in that position or hold it for very long. But if you can get a more aero position without compromising #1 and #2, well, it's a win-win. I've personally found that I have equal comfort at a few centimetres lower bar position than I did when I first started riding more seriously.

And we didn't address all the aspects of fit. The geometry of the handlebars will also change your reach! So your stem length on the new bike will be a combination of frame reach (you can look up both bikes) plus handlebar reach. Even the angle of the handlebars and hoods (level, tilted up, etc) can lead to small differences in reach. ALL THAT SAID, if both bikes are using "typical" compact bars (most likely), then it will probably be pretty close. You can take out your tape measure and see if you need to adjust the stem length accordingly after accounting for differences in handlebar reach. Giant's site doesn't make it obvious what the geometry of the handebars is on that bike (other than width). They have measurements for just about everything else.

And the crank length will affect saddle height. Worth checking to see if these are the same. Probably yes if you are choosing a similar frame size. And even the seat tube angle will affect where your saddle falls (to get your knees in the same position) -- which will affect reach to the bars.

There are other fine details, but in practical terms, I see no reason why you couldn't approximate your current fit on the new bike with the main difference being number of spacers under the stem, seat position (forward/back relative to center of seat post) and possibly a slightly different stem length than the stock one that comes with the bike. You can take all the measurements from your CAAD10 and your bike shop should be able to help you replicate them on the new bike (e.g. get out your tape measure and level: )

Iride01 

I think you are starting to get the picture on geometry. You can't just look at stack and top and seat tube lengths. Because they don't in themselves tell you where your position is. And you can't even compare one frames geometry to another and make an assumption about fit unless you also take in to account the things that affect your final position on the bike that aren't given in typical frame geometry specs.

Essentially to get the same body position, you need to have your contact points on the bike in the same position. And this is going to be mostly three simple measurements that you have to go to extra effort to derive from the frame geometry specs:

1. Distance from where you sit on the saddle to the place you put your hands on the bike.
2. Distance from where you sit on the saddle to the pedal at it's furthest point from you.
3. The amount of drop (or rise) from where you sit on the saddle to the place you put your hands on the bike.

There are a lot of variables within those three things too, but these are the basic things you need to look at if you truly want to know if a bike can fit you. And unless you get into knowing how many spacers can be put under the stem on that new bike and know the stem length, reach and drop of the bars and where the hoods sit on the bars, then geometry specs when simply compared can make you overlook a bike that might work well for you.

I do feel you might be wrong to assume that the position you were fitted for originally is the only position you can be. Typically as a novice, you won't want an aggressive position. And a fitter will take that into account whether they consulted you about it or not. As you get more cycling fit, you might find what is considered a more aggressive position as comfortable and notice that you get better performance from it. I have.

drewtk

You cannot do the 1 for 1 math accurately you're describing, short of actually measuring your current bike and actually measuring the bikes you're considering. Other measurements besides stack and reach will significantly impact the fit of the bike, although I understand why so much emphasis is placed on stack and reach.

For comparison, I just bought a new race bike that has virtually the same stack, reach, and top tube length as my current race bike, within a few MM. But when I physically compare them side by the side, the cockpit on my new bike is an inch longer, despite having a shorter wheelbase. It's a more aggressive bike in every respect, but you'd never see that by just comparing the numbers.

In your case, I think virtually any current disc brake bike will address your need for more comfort over rough roads because most disc brake bikes will accept 32 mm tires now, or at least a 28. So an endurance geometry will work for you, but I think a race bike would work as well since you aren't complaining about neck or shoulder pain.

And the benefits of a race bike aren't just for racing. It allows you the rider to get into a lower, more aggressive position if set up that way. That means more cycling efficiency, which will benefit you on all rides, if you can comfortably hold the position.